LATEST

RUCKERT – Citizens’ assemblies a good way to decide on electoral system

By GISELA RUCKERT
Guest Columnist

MEL MAY CALL proportional representation an uninvited guest, but I’m laying out the welcome mat!

He is absolutely correct that it’s not a new concept and that it is once again a hot topic in the wake of two consecutive elections where the party that won the most votes didn’t win the most seats. (And Mel says pro rep is hard to figure out!)

Gisela Ruckert

2021 happens to be the 100-year anniversary of the first federal government elected on a promise to introduce proportional representation.

Not coincidentally, 1921 is also the year Canada began to have more than two political parties, which is what our current voting system was designed for.

Yes, proportional representation has indeed been “studied to death”, but it also benefits from a great deal of “lived experience”.

Most of the world adopted it over a century ago — it’s the most common family of democratic systems in the world. Over 90 countries use it: Canada, the U.S. and the U.K. are the notable outliers.

In most of the world, an election isn’t a horse race. The point is to create a decision-making body that represents all voters, not just the loudest voices in each riding.

Comparative academic studies show that countries using consensual-style governments enjoy better outcomes on health, education, environment and the economy. They also have greater voter satisfaction and higher voter turnout.

Happily, every Canadian assembly and commission ever to examine electoral reform has recommended that we switch to proportional representation. As polls confirm, Canadians like the idea of parties sharing power, policy stability that outlasts the electoral cycle, civil debate on policy options instead of personal attacks, and legislatures that mirror the diversity of the societies they serve.

All the proportional systems recommended by Fair Vote Canada would maintain local representation, allow voters to elect every politician by name (no party appointments, Mel), and provide voters with greater choice — often enabling them to choose among several candidates of the same party.

In contrast to the current system which exaggerates corrosive regionalism, proportional systems would ensure MPs from all the major parties get elected in all regions of the country – because that’s how Canadians actually vote.

Perhaps most importantly, the vast majority of voters would help elect an MP who shares their priorities, in contrast to the 52 per cent of “orphan” voters who cast ballots that elected no one in the most recent election.

So why don’t Canadians have proportional representation yet? Well, Justin Trudeau is just the latest in a long line of politicians starting with Mackenzie King who promised reform, then got elected, and promptly thought better of it.

It’s not surprising that politicians, having just been handed 100 per cent power with as little as 39 per cent voter support, are not eager to fix the problem. Having to share power or win the support of more than 50 per cent of voters is a major downer!

Studying the issue forever has proven a popular way to avoid implementing proportional representation, as has subjecting it to referendums plagued by misinformation. And here we are, 100 years later.

Mel and I could probably keep arguing about this for the next 100 years (we both seem to have pretty good stamina), but the good news is that we don’t actually need to. There’s a better way to decide whether or not our voting system should be reformed.

The key to breaking this log jam is for our leaders to show integrity, acknowledge their conflict of interest, and step aside. Ethically, they should hand the decision back to citizens — in a way that encourages informed, thoughtful debate and evidence-based decision-making, rather than partisanship and divisive polarization.

Deliberative, citizen-driven processes have been gaining steam around the world. Citizens’ assemblies are built on the belief that when given the knowledge, resources and time, a body of citizens can find solutions to complex and challenging issues where politicians have gotten stuck.

A randomly selected but demographically representative group of ordinary folks is equipped with the resources they need to develop in-depth understanding of an issue. They deliberate and come to consensus. Digital platforms make it possible for the rest of us to follow the proceedings of the assembly and even provide feedback at various stages, lending the process transparency.

Recommendations emerging from citizens’ assemblies are free of partisan interference and are seen as highly legitimate expressions of the popular will. They’ve been used around the world to find agreement on tough issues: in Germany (democracy), Australia (nuclear waste), France (climate change), and Ireland (abortion).

Citizens’ assemblies offer a credible path forward for the renewal of Canadian democracy. In a 2020 Leger poll, 80 per cent of Canadians supported a national citizens’ assembly on how the country votes.

If we want a solution that is genuinely in the common interest, we need to stop arguing and demand a process we can trust. We need to demand that our leaders establish a National Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform.

Mel, I am willing to accept what my fellow citizens decide on this issue. Are you?

(Bonus: If the decision is handed over to our peers, you and I could stop this pointless arguing!)

Proudly unrepentant and unbowed, Gisela Ruckert.

Gisela Ruckert is a member of Fair Vote Kamloops.

About Mel Rothenburger (8485 Articles)
ArmchairMayor.ca is a forum about Kamloops and the world. It has more than one million views. Mel Rothenburger is the former Editor of The Daily News in Kamloops, B.C. (retiring in 2012), and past mayor of Kamloops (1999-2005). At ArmchairMayor.ca he is the publisher, editor, news editor, city editor, reporter, webmaster, and just about anything else you can think of. He is grateful for the contributions of several local columnists. This blog doesn't require a subscription but gratefully accepts donations to help defray costs.

11 Comments on RUCKERT – Citizens’ assemblies a good way to decide on electoral system

  1. Well said Gisela Ruckert. Politicians deciding which voting system is best is fraught with a conflict of interest from the start because they will try to advantage their own political party. I have much more confidence in a representative group of randomly chosen citizens to recommend a voting system which works for all of us.

  2. I can’t help you more than this, Pierre. You need to actually read the links. The City of Kamloops has most certainly never held a Citizens’ Assembly. There have been very few held in Canada.

    • Let’s reason without external aid for a moment Gisela. Let’s look at the voters turnout. Voting is a basic and extremely simple way to participate in the democratic process. Using a pen to tick off a name or fill-in a dot with blue or black ink or graphite. Pretty simple and private. Now let’s look at participating in a citizens’ assembly and the uncomfortable feeling of speaking up in public. That is the most un-Canadian thing to do. I am not to type more, hopefully you catch the whiff…citizens’ assembly will not work in Canada.

    • I am reading be links (and more) so you know Gisela.

  3. Ms. Ruckert is correct: partisanship and divisive polarisation, and intentionally using misinformation is the reasons attempts towards proportional representation fail, full stop.

    Any political party negatively impacted by pro rep use every talking point tool in its belt to force the conversation away from the clear, simplistic ideals of pro rep and towards instilling as much confusion as possible, literally scaring the hell out of voters.

    Depending on the type of pro rep, in the end voters just need to mark their choices in order of preference, and walk away. What happens next is entirely up to Elections Canada (or provincial) to do the math and determine who gets what seat. Political opposition to pro rep focus on the voter for some reason needing to understand every step of that math and instilling that the complexity of it is enough reason to say no, and it works.

    I cant tell you amount of times when reading voters comments when it comes up; “I just dont understand it, so I’m voting against it”. The opposition nurtures this message and wins using it.

    Also, our writer here points out that anti pro rep pundits love to hyper-focus on certain styles of this type of voting that dont make sense in Canada (like party appointments), as a reason to disregard all pro rep’s entirely. Fair Vote Canada doe not recommend party appointed seats, but naysayers continue to use it in their arguments. Its a common ploy. This is misdirection.

    Will any of this change? Not soon.
    These arguments work to maintain the status quo,
    all the powers that be want … is power,
    and if they have to disenfranchise the voter to keep it,
    … so be it.

    • Mel Rothenburger // September 27, 2021 at 3:26 PM // Reply

      Just a reminder that party appointments were very much an issue in the last B.C. vote on pro rep because they were included in one of the options. John Horgan belatedly insisted – after voting was already underway – there would be no party appointments after all.

      • To be more precise, the proposal did not specify whether the lists would be open or closed, leaving that decision for later. I too wish that Horgan had chosen to make the clarification a bit earlier.

        For the record, Fair Vote Canada does not support closed party lists — Canadians want to be able to choose their MPs directly. So be it.

        On a more abstract note, I find it interesting that party list is one of the most common systems of PR in the world, and no one seems to worked about it. I think maybe they have unburdened themselves of the delusion that local MPs would ever dare to vote against the party line. In Canada’s 42nd Parliament (2015 to 2019), MPs voted against their party’s proposals less than 0.5% of the time. It’s very clear that there is precious little room for independent thought in today’s parties, much as we’d like to believe otherwise.

  4. Citizen assemblies? Where 1% of the population shows up, usually the “converted” ones not really keen on listening to any opposite views.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: